PATENT Act introduced in US Senate with bipartisan support

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

PATENT Act introduced in US Senate with bipartisan support

A patent reform bill has been introduced in the Senate that includes wide-ranging proposals to tackle patent trolls, but its fee shifting provision gives less chance to recover fees than under the House of Representatives’ Innovation Act

us-congress.jpg

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, along with senior committee members John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer, have introduced legislation to reform the US patent system.

The Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act 6 of 2015 (PATENT Act) is also co-sponsored by Judiciary Committee members Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch and Amy Klobuchar.

The PATENT Act includes a fee shifting provision, a subject that has proved controversial in discussions over reform in Congress. Senator Hatch noted: “Effective patent troll legislation must provide a mechanism to ensure that defendants can recover fees even against judgment-proof shell companies. With the addition of a strong fee recovery provision that I have long championed, the PATENT Act now does just that.”

However, the fee shifting provision is less strict than the one included in the Innovation Act, which was reintroduced by Bob Goodlatte in the House of Representatives in February.

The overview provided with the PATENT Act says the fee shifting provision: “Provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if a court determines the position or conduct of the non-prevailing party (plaintiff or defendant) was not objectively reasonable, unless special circumstances make an award unjust. The winner must show that the non-prevailing party’s position was not objectively reasonable and the judge must make a ruling for fees to 2 shift – this is not a presumptive fee shifting rule. Fee shifting extends to cases where a party attempts to unilaterally withdraw from a case on the eve of a trial. Keeps 271(e) (Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars) proceedings under current law.”

The main provisions of the PATENT Act are:

Clarifies Pleading Standards. The bill would establish clear, uniform standards for pleading in patent infringement suits to give defendants real notice of the claims against them, and keep meritless lawsuits from clogging federal court dockets. It also increases transparency by requiring early disclosures about the patent-in-suit.

Protects End Users. The bill protect customers who are targeted for patent infringement based on a product they simply purchased from a manufacturer or off the shelf by allowing the stay of an infringement case against an end user of a product while the manufacturer of the product litigates the alleged infringement.

Reasonably Limits Early Discovery. The legislation protects litigants from the threat of expensive discovery by requiring a court to stay discovery while it resolves key early motions in the case, including motions to dismiss and transfer venue. The bill also directs the Judicial Conference to develop rules about how much a party should bear the cost of discovery beyond what is core for the case.

Creates Risk for Bad Actors. In order to deter plaintiffs and defendants from engaging in abusive and dilatory litigation practices, the bill provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if the winner proves and a court rules that the losing party was not “objectively reasonable.” The legislation provides a process to recover fees where the abusive litigant is hiding behind a shell company.

Curbs Abusive Demand Letters. The legislation adds requirements that demand letters contain meaningful information so they cannot be used merely to scare recipients into early settlements. The bill also heightens penalties for those found to violate the FTC Act by sending misleading demand letters.

Increases Transparency. The bill requires the PTO to keep information about patent ownership in order to provide a resource about patents being asserted in a demand letter or lawsuit.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article